Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need technology that is less immersive, not more

filiph.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#161

Post by brailsafe »

aisuujudjdn wrote: post #158
massysett wrote: post #47

"I hope you’ll agree that humanity has a variety of important engineering problems to solve, and nicer-looking graphics is quite low on that list." I used to sneer at the social value of entertainment. Then covid lockdowns hit. I spent a lot of time playing Factorio. When professional sports resumed playing (in empty stadiums, with fake crowd noise on the broadcasts) I was happy to sit on the couch after work and wat…

With all due respect, I think you took the exact opposite lesson from the pandemic that you probably should have and that your story implies.

Why is that? Remember that during the pandemic, many places shut down any other sources of social stimulation that might be there, including actual socializing. Unless you had a very specific set of existing interests, it was hard to find anything outside of work to do in many cases.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#163

Post by nostrademons »

wharvle wrote: post #139
nostrademons wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame is counterproductive. The world simply is the way it is, but it is helpful to have a realistic picture of why, and then you can make local modifications that might at least make your own life a bit nicer. In advertising's case, it's such a huge industry because it works. It moves the needle on purchasers' decisions. You can make it work a little less well on yourself with a few mental habits: never buy on impul…

> Business owners are rewarded for shifting resources away from activities that consumers don't value highly (as evidenced by their willingness to pay for them) to ones that they do. If you feel that businesses are focusing on the wrong things, spend your money differently. So... that's not blame? Is "businesses only do this because you tell them to, with money, so stop telling them to if you don't like it" not the i…

It's consequences, not blame. There's no value judgment in saying "If you do this, it will result in these consequences." You can make your own judgment about which set of consequences you prefer.

"My point is that the modern advertising industry is better classed as a result of large-scale structures and societal-scale rules"

Does this model result in useful predictions that you can act upon? A model that "advertising works because in the aggregate, it alters buying decisions and leads to more spending being directed to the advertiser" is very actionable: it tells you exactly where the money is, why it is being spent, and then gives you leads to areas you might want to study (eg. human psychology and perception, owning a channel, producing content at scale) to make you better at influencing those money flows. A model that "the modern advertising industry is better classed as a result of large-scale structures and societal-scale rules" may be true, but it's pretty useless. It doesn't have enough detail to make specific predictions, and its area of focus is on phenomena that you don't have any agency over anyway.

My physics professors were always very clear that the true value of a theory is "Can you make testable predictions with it?" My English & sociology professors were always very clear that "Society doesn't actually exist. It's just a collection of individual actors." This was pretty eye-opening when I got to college, because it got me to understand the value of thinking in terms of specifics rather grand theories that sound expansive as a soundbite but can't actually be used.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#164

Post by em-bee »

nostrademons wrote: post #135
em-bee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can with good conscience say that i am doing all of what you suggest. no impulse, do research, skip and une out ads. except for the paid media to avoid ads. i use adblockers for that. but i struggle with that other side. i'd love to earn some money on sidebusinesses like that, but i feel like making them ad supported would be close to unethical. i want people to stop paying attention to ads, not take advantage of t…

Not everybody wants the same things. Giving them what they want so you get what you want makes both of you better off.

if i allow ads on my website, i am not giving people what they want, but i exploit their naivete to make them buy what they don't actually need or want.

i probably can't even control what ads will be running, so how would i know if those ads are something i would approve of or not?

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#166

Post by EasyMark »

filiph wrote: post #74
massysett wrote: post #47

"I hope you’ll agree that humanity has a variety of important engineering problems to solve, and nicer-looking graphics is quite low on that list." I used to sneer at the social value of entertainment. Then covid lockdowns hit. I spent a lot of time playing Factorio. When professional sports resumed playing (in empty stadiums, with fake crowd noise on the broadcasts) I was happy to sit on the couch after work and wat…

Nobody disputes that entertainment has value. The article is about the fact that so much talent and resources is funneled into immersion. Using your neurosurgeon example, I posit that having fewer VR headsets will not prevent the doctor from unwinding. Nor will having mobile phones with less vibrant colors or application with lower engagement metrics.

They are refining over time the ability to hit our pleasure (and fear) centers. Whole branches of advertising psychology are dedicated to it. If "will power" was an unlimited resource everyone could just turn on whenever they desired, then that wouldn't be an issue and I suspect America would be a lot thinner as well. It's a limited resource, and some people have a lot more of it than others. Therefore, some of these new technologies really do need to be regulated, knowing that while we are mental and spiritual beings, we are also biological beings who sometimes don't have the will power to overcome, especially a scientifically verified means of getting around our usual common sense to moderate and balance "things" in our lives.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#167

Post by filleduchaos »

feoren wrote: post #70
whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t buy this for even a minute. If my starter solenoid goes out on my old time Jeep I get the same feeling. (It’s happened a few times now). Does this mean the Jeep is now part of my body? Of course not. It’s called being annoyed or caught off guard by external stimuli. I think there is a large portion of people on this website who have not spent a day in years without their devices. That doesn’t mean their devic…

> Does this mean the Jeep is now part of my body? Of course not. Why is that "of course not"? Is your arm part of your body? Your hair? A wig? A pacemaker? A well-fitted mechanical exoskeleton that you use without thinking about it? A poorly-fitted exoskeleton that you're still learning how to use? A Jeep? It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. If the criteria is: well, I can't feel the Jeep -- well, you can't f…

> Is your arm part of your body?

Of course yes.

> Your hair?

Of course yes.

> A wig?

Of course not.

> A pacemaker?

Depends on who's asking and why.

> A well-fitted mechanical exoskeleton that you use without thinking about it? A poorly-fitted exoskeleton that you're still learning how to use?

Of course not to both of these things.

> A Jeep?

Of course not, and framing a Jeep and a human's liver as if the only possible point of difference between them is whether or not you can "feel" them is strange.

Half of us are fully capable of growing an entire other human being within our bodies, with a physical connection so tightly integrated that breaking it causes bleeding for weeks - and yet it's debatable whether even that counts as being a part of our bodies (especially medically speaking). Navel-gazing about the distinction between your body and a car not being clear-cut is simply inane to me in comparison.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#168

Post by em-bee »

dwaltrip wrote: post #152
wharvle wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entertainment has gotten really weird now that we have (multiple forms of) recording, plus quick on-demand transmission to practically anywhere. Basically all "need" I have of new recorded (to include video games—on-demand and not requiring the attention or effort of anyone but myself) entertainment is social. Any "need" for new entertainment exists because new entertainment is being created . If new entertainment st…

> If new entertainment stopped being created entirely, my quality of life wouldn't actually drop at all, because there's an astounding quantity & variety of it already, far more than I can engage with in a lifetime… You don’t think there will be better entertainment in a decade or two? That’s what it sounds like you are saying.

not that it won't get better. but that getting better entertainment is not a need.

for me on the other hand i can definitely see some improvements that i would like to see in entertainment. mostly in the generation of content for games, and graphics quality that is affordable for everyone. (i am not buying the latest graphics hardware, but i play games a few years behind the most modern available, but i expect that to improve as well)

i am happy for things to get better, but i have no desire to spend more money just to have it earlier.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#169

Post by kgwxd »

skydhash wrote: post #154
photonthug wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever go rock-crawling for several hours off-road with that jeep? If the stakes are high because you're far from a paved road, 4x4 is also a very immersive experience. After a while the tires become like toes, and finding a good line with the vehicle starts to feel like stepping carefully around broken glass. You cringe almost in anticipation of personal pain when you take a bad line. There's surely some neurological…

Even with playing a racing simulation, where it's a constant challenge to control the car, while the controller or the wheel become quickly abstracted away, the car itself become something your conscious inhabits. You react to stimuli (sound, visual, and vibration), not from your point of view, but from the car.

> not from your point of view, but from the car.

I think you just improved my Rocket League game by just accurately describing what probably should have been obvious, that's exactly what it feels like to be in the zone.

Re: We need technology that is less immersive, not more

#170

Post by nostrademons »

em-bee wrote: post #164
nostrademons wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everybody wants the same things. Giving them what they want so you get what you want makes both of you better off.

if i allow ads on my website, i am not giving people what they want, but i exploit their naivete to make them buy what they don't actually need or want. i probably can't even control what ads will be running, so how would i know if those ads are something i would approve of or not?

Like everything, it's a trade-off. You get money; you lose control. You get to decide whether you feel like that trade-off is worth it.
Post reply on HN